.png)
Grading, Reporting, and Extended Learning Opportunities
Section Contents :
Mastery, Proficiency, Grading Practices, and Reporting
​
Creating the Guidelines and Additional Decisions: The Domino Effect
More Dominoes — Grading Practices
Even More Dominoes — Report Cards
The Other Side of the Argument
Additional Considerations
Student Motivation
​
Extended Learning Opportunities
Mastery, Proficiency, Grading Practices, and Reporting
“Bloom suggested that although students vary widely in their learning rates and modalities, if teachers could provide the necessary time and appropriate learning conditions, nearly all students could reach a high level of achievement.”
–Thomas Guskey
Recall your previous work around mastery and mastery statements. At this point, you should have already clarified what mastery looks like in your district and have set the foundation for district expectations toward student achievement. Requirements for Instructional Planning Resources (IPR) and common outcome assessments have been clarified and are now being, or will soon be, implemented. The next pieces to consider include how mastery relates to proficiency, and how it further impacts grading practices and grade reporting?
Mastery Versus Proficiency
Mastery and proficiency are similar in nature and are oftentimes confused as meaning the same thing. Proficiency is the level at which a student demonstrates that they know and/or are able to perform an outcome or component. In other words, this is the level that a student must achieve to demonstrate that they’ve “got it.” Mastery, on the other, hand, is the demonstration of proficiency multiple times and in multiple different ways. The piece that really separates the two (mastery and proficiency) is that mastery requires a student to demonstrate they have retained their learning. The relationship among mastery, proficiency, grading practices, and grade reporting is illustrated in this graphic organizer (click to enlarge):
Grading Practices
“Changing grading practices doesn’t mean that the grading practices of the past were wrong, necessarily, rather, they are wrong in today’s context. What we used to do was right for how we used to teach, but we don’t teach like that anymore.”
–Tom Schimmer, Grading from the Inside Out (2015)
So often, the first obstacle to change in the realm of grading is that districts have not clearly identified why change in grading practices is necessary. Clarifying the vision or need for change is highlighted in Section I and is critical to managing change for success. In the next several pages, considerations for changing grading practices and then grade reporting practices are described. Since each district will take its own journey to manage these philosophical changes, the end of the journey will likely leave each district in its own unique place.
Creating the Guidelines and Additional Decisions: The Domino Effect
Creating general mastery and letter grade guidelines is a good starting point for a district. Any changes to grading guidelines requires deep conversation and input from staff. One progression might include:
​
-
Initial CCC study of current practice and best practice research
-
Share discussion summaries with staff and solicit input from staff
-
Use input and available information to create a draft of guidelines
-
Share guidelines with staff and solicit input
-
Continue discussion until consensus is reached or a decision close to consensus can be made
Beyond this initial step into a change in grading, there are many other considerations that can lead to more effective grading and reporting. Robert Marzano, a leading educational researcher and author, put it this way in his book, Transforming Classroom Grading, “Why would anyone want to change grading practices? The answer is quite simple: grades are so imprecise, they are almost meaningless.” (Marzano, R. (2000). Transforming classroom grading.) In order to improve the precision of grades, Marzano indicates that consistency is an important factor and that guidelines should be as detailed as possible and still allow for complexities of differences between subject areas.
​
Creating these guidelines helps clarify for all stakeholders what the district stands for in terms of excellence. However, it also sets the domino effect in motion because additional questions and issues will arise. One such issue has to do with “in-progress” work. Suppose a student has not yet earned the necessary “C” required by the guidelines, but is still working toward that goal. Can the student continue to work on an outcome all year, or will there be a time limit set? And how does “in-progress” affect honor roll status, or elegibility? Once again, CCC members debate these issues, come to consensus among themselves, and draft a recommendation to share with all staff. Feedback leads to additional debate, until satisfactory decisions can be made.
More Dominoes – Grading Practices
A district that has made the kinds of decisions described so far has indeed made a great deal of progress and should rightfully feel more secure about issues of accountability. But the dominoes will continue to fall. As “Joe” said in the faculty-meeting skit about mastery, this is a situation where answering one question leads to others. In the Pleasant Valley example, mastery guidelines refer to the need for students to demonstrate at least “C” work. The grading guidelines do help define what constitutes a “C” — and these guidelines are helpful to teachers, parents, and students alike in describing expectations. However, the guidelines define grades only in the broadest sense. When Pleasant Valley first implemented the guidelines, and teachers started referring to them when grading, they discovered there were still many discrepancies in actual grading practices from one teacher to another. For example, to come up with a grade for a report card, some teachers included grades from all homework; some did not. For daily assignments, some subtracted “points” if work was late, some did not, and some would not accept late work at all. Some teachers gave a great amount of “weight” to the outcome assessment, while others gave it little or no more importance than assignments and quizzes. If students had to retake a test, some teachers replaced the original grade, and some averaged the scores. And so on . . .
​
The next big question then, is whether these grading discrepancies are acceptable or whether they cause a problem. Should grading practices be standardized, and if so — to what degree? District decisions range from standardizing all grading practices, to only a few — or even none. Deciding what to do about grading practices depends a great deal on whether the district is considered high-stakes. Does the state require strict accountability to standards? Has the district, or a school within the district, been “identified” as one that must show improvement in student performance? Does the state (or accrediting agency) have promotion or graduation requirements? These kinds of situations must be considered, and the higher the stakes — the greater the need for standardization.
​
The district should ask themselves whether some degree of standardization would be beneficial to the district’s mission. In the faculty-meeting skit, “James” mentions teacher differences in grading and adds, “If we’re holding all students accountable to the same outcomes, then that accountability needs to be the same.” His point is a good one, and serves as a basis for the CCC to open dialogue. If — after thoroughly examining the issue — members can justify why no standardization is necessary, then nothing more need be done.
​
Those districts that feel differently — who want to reach consensus on some or all grading practices — can follow procedures similar to those used for creating the general mastery and letter grade guidelines. The first step is for CCC members to create a list of questions related to grading practices for teachers to consider. Here are some sample questions:
​
-
How are your lessons and records organized? (i.e. by outcomes, by nine-week periods…)
-
What information do you keep for each outcome? (i.e. homework scores, quizzes, projects, in-class assignments…? Do you record these as letter grades or points?)
-
If students are working on outcomes above or below grade level, how does this affect the grade on the report card?
-
Should non-academic performance affect grades?
-
What rules are in place for allowing students to retest? What do you do with retest scores?
-
In determining grades, what is the relationship of daily work to outcome assessments? (Are they equal? Should the assessments “count more”? If so, what is the weighting scale?)
​
Subsequent steps follow this sequence.
​
-
Each teacher first forms – and records – his or her own opinions regarding the questions.
-
Facilitated, small-group discussions occur next. The facilitator clarifies information where needed, then presents a “possible” response to each question. (These possible responses can come from CCC discussions/consensus, or from reporting what some other districts have decided.*)
-
Teachers record whether they agree or disagree with each “possible” response that was presented, and eventually compare the latter reactions to their first opinions. While this process takes a little time, it actually saves time in the long run, because it helps teachers focus and clarify their own thoughts, which makes them better able to articulate their views in future discussions.
-
In the final steps, groups try to reach consensus—starting with small groups, then combining small groups to form larger, and possibly still larger, groups to continue working toward consensus. The CCC usually makes the decision of just how far to take this… does consensus only need to be by grade level or department… by building… or will you strive for the entire district to have one set of guidelines?
​
​
The following is an example of the detail that might be included in a comprehensive grading policy in which the guidelines for what evidence should be used for grading and how that evidence should be used. The sample also includes how grades will be reported and whether grades are reported at the outcome or the subject level or both. Consistency in grading guidelines does not necessarily mean that grading/reporting methods for kindergarten students and 12th grade students are exactly the same; however, it does mean that the guidelines are followed in the entire district as described for each level.
Sample Grading and Reporting Guidelines
Pleasant Valley School District
​
Purpose of grades: To communicate to students and parents the current level of progress toward specific learning outcomes and components of the adopted curriculum.
​
Work Outside of the Classroom: If work is assigned for outside the classroom it will be an extension of practice for concepts and skills begun in the classroom or as background to participate in the next days’ lesson. Students are expected to complete work as assigned in order to practice essential skills for which students will be held accountable. Outside work may be recorded, and should be corrected with feedback provided to students as to their success but will not be used in the calculation of a grade on an outcome, component, or a subject. The record of work completion will be used to help determine a student’s “Citizenship/Employability Skills” according to the district developed rubric.
​
Component Assessments: Component assessments will be used to assess the progress of student mastery of each component. Additional instruction and reassessment will be provided to those students not demonstrating satisfactory progress. These scores may be used in the computation of a grade for an outcome. When a student completes a reassessment, the previous score will be replaced with the most recent score.
​
Outcome Assessments: District common assessments with pre-determined criteria will be used to evaluate student learning. Students not meeting the criteria will receive additional focused instruction and practice to improve learning and will be reassessed when appropriate. Outcome assessment scores will be used in the determination of a grade for the outcome and for the subject, if applicable. When a student completes a reassessment, the previous score will be replaced with the most recent score.
​
Enrichment Activities: Enrichment activities that demonstrate deeper learning of specific components will be provided to students who demonstrate mastery of the component prior to the end of instructional period for the outcome. These scores may only be used in the enhancement of a grade for an outcome.
More Grading and Reporting Guideline Samples
Even More Dominoes – Report Cards
At this point, the district has created general guidelines for mastery and grading issues, and made decisions about standardization of more specific grading practices. Questions will now also arise about whether and how decisions made in these areas will affect a student’s report card. Continuing with the discussion regarding report cards here are some common concerns and considerations.
​
-
Our current report cards have a letter-grade “key” that shows the percentages associated with each grade. Our new grading guidelines have different indicators or descriptions of marks from our existing grade cards. Will we eliminate the key, or change it to reflect the new guidelines? Can the changes be made in the current grading program which prints our grade cards?
-
Should we continue just to list the subject and a letter grade, or should the report card list the outcomes for each subject?
-
If we list outcomes, will each outcome receive a grade, will the outcomes be averaged for one grade, or will both be shown?
​
Although it was clear in question #1 that something had to change about the report card “key,” there were related issues: (a) whether just to completely eliminate the key; (b) whether to try to put a quantatative and qualitative key on the report card; (c) whether to print a one-page copy of the guidelines and attach it to the report card; or (d) whether to list the guidelines in the student handbook in addition to, or instead of connecting them to the report card. With the increased use of electronic report cards or electronically created paper grade cards, some of these issues will be easily resolved. However, the discussion of what is possible in the district electronic grading program will need to be taken into consideration.
​
Question #2 was more troublesome. The following is an argument for listing the outcomes on the report card. Suppose…
​
You’ve just received your daughter’s high school report card. You see that she has an “A” in algebra, “B” in English and in physical education, a “C” in Spanish and a ”D” in social studies. Now which of the following are true?
​
-
She’s naturally talented in mathematics.
-
She’s not naturally talented in math, but all the tests have been multiple choice and she’s a good guesser.
-
She is able to understand abstract concepts.
-
Her English class focused on literature this past nine weeks.
-
She uses appropriate grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure when she writes.
-
She understands plot, but not character development.
-
She can perform fitness activities quite well, but is a little lazy about doing so.
-
She participates in all physical education activities and demonstrates good sportsmanship.
-
She doesn’t have a “good ear” for linguistic sounds.
-
She can read Spanish well, but not speak it.
-
She hasn’t been studying her social studies.
-
She has been studying her social studies, but the teacher doesn’t know how to explain things.
-
She’s not good at memorizing.
-
All of the above.
-
None of the above.
-
Who knows?
​
Most of us think we know our children pretty well, so we may make assumptions or guess at what’s going on when we read their report cards. But assumptions and guesswork rarely result in accuracy. If all we have is a letter grade, the only answer we could accurately choose for the “which of these is true?” question is “#16.”
​
When you stop to think about it, what does a letter grade really tell us? Whether a student has worked hard and studied a lot? Not necessarily. Some students do have natural talents, interests, or previous knowledge that allow them to breeze through a class making “A”s with little or no effort. Conversely, some students pay attention, do their assignments, and devote many extra hours each day to a subject, only to barely pass or even to fail the subject’s requirements. And frankly, is “how much a student studied” important? The main issues are whether and what the student is learning. What does the student know, what can he do, and what are the specific problems he’s encountering? A letter grade does not impart that information.
​
The Other Side of the Argument
Many teachers and parents alike are resistant to change. Some teachers see this only as “more work.” And some parents really don’t care that much about what students are supposed to be learning — they only want that “bottom line” of whether their child is succeeding. These parents often complain that a report card with outcomes is too lengthy and/or confusing; all they want to see is what they’re accustomed to seeing: a single letter grade.
​
The CCC must analyze these points of view to make decisions. They may or may not choose to involve a representative group of parents in the decision-making process. In the end, they might even vary their decisions according to building levels, i.e. the elementary and middle schools list outcomes, but the high school does not. Or, they might choose to “phase in” the change — listing outcomes for only the elementary school for a designated number of years, then adding the middle school when kindergartners under this format reach middle school, and finally revising the high school report card when those “kindergartners” enter the high school program. The most important element in these decisions is: what is the purpose of a report card? Resistance to change should not be the sole reason for not making the change. On the other hand, if a gradual change process will work best for everyone involved, then that fact should carry much weight in the decision-making process.
Additional Considerations
A district that decides (at one or more building levels) to include outcomes on the report card also has options for how to “mark” a student’s progress. Several examples are provided at the end of this section.
The checkmark approach. When an outcome has been accomplished, it is “checked off.” A simple checkmark is made in the blank next to the outcome; no letter grade is recorded. A “zero” means the outcome has been attempted but not accomplished. Nothing in the blank indicates it has not yet been taught.
The letter grade marking. A letter grade is assigned and placed in the blank next to each outcome. Nothing in the blank indicates it has not yet been taught, or a letter code such as “NI” could be used for “Not Introduced Yet.”
The letter or number indicator.
Letters or numbers are used as indicators; a “key” explains what each means. For example, S = satisfactory completion, I = in progress, N = not making progress. (Numbers can be used instead of letters.)
Districts may or may not average the outcome grades to obtain one subject grade for the grading period. Some districts give a letter grade for each outcome… period. There is no subject grade, and this makes the process slightly less complicated for teachers to implement. Students and parents can see the grade that was assigned for each outcome. For example, a student who receives a “B” for three outcomes and an “A” for two of them sees exactly that: three “B”s and two “A”s rather than the “B” that would result from averaging.
​
However, some districts still prefer (or are required) to arrive at one subject grade for the grading period in addition to marking each outcome. This can be accomplished in the same way it always has been done with traditional grade averaging. Traditionally, teachers averaged the grades for all assignments and test scores to determine one final subject grade. The same thing is done with outcomes, except that the teacher averages the grades for all outcomes to determine the subject grade.
​
Another major decision the CCC makes is whether to continue using the same traditional letter grades. In some districts, no “D”s or “F”s are reported! The reason for this is one of common sense: if a student has performed only “D” or “F” quality of work, then obviously the student has not mastered the outcome. In a results-based system we are reporting whether each outcome has been met. And in a true results-based district, we don’t give students the option of doing substandard work; we offer different kinds of instruction and additional support and insist they continue to work until they accomplish that which is expected. Therefore they either receive an acceptable grade (“A,” “B,” or “C”) or their work is still in progress.
​
Some districts also include information about the time involved in a student’s learning. If a report shows only that outcomes are mastered, a student’s parents might think their child has just been sailing along smoothly, when in reality the child had to work on some outcomes for a considerable time before being successful. A report that lists the number of times a student was assessed on an outcome gives the parents a much better understanding of their child’s progress (or lack thereof). Some districts put this information right next to the grade (or checkmark, date – whatever is used to indicate completion) for an outcome; others report it on a separate sheet that is enclosed with the report card.
Student Motivation
As districts begin making decisions about grading practices, it is important to note that not all students are motivated by grades—or at least not as much as you might think. In fact, students are motivated both intrinsically and extrinsically by many different things. Intrinsic motivation comes from within; therefore, intrinsically motivated students may say things like, “this really interests me” or “I like getting good grades.” Extrinsically motivated students might say, “if I fail this class, I won’t be able to get that scholarship” or “the teacher will bring treats if we do well on this test.” Educators would obviously all prefer to have students who have intrinsic motivation, but that isn’t always the case. Unfortunately, research also shows that there is a significant linear decrease in intrinsic motivation from 3rd grade through 8th grade, which positively correlates with grades and standardized test scores. On the other hand, extrinsic motivation showed no correlation across these grade levels with either decreases or increases in grades and standardized scores. In other words, educators must really make an effort to know their students and nurture any apparent intrinsic motivators. The following graphic suggests possible motivators for students.
Extended Learning Opportunities
Teachers absolutely must provide differentiated instruction in the classroom as a regular part of the teaching process. Extended learning opportunities in the curriculum can be for students who need extra time and support or students who are way ahead of the rest of the class for a particular outcome, but in either case, they abide by the definitions — they are not just more of the same thing. In order for teachers to effectively employ differentiation strategies the following governance issues must be addressed early in the second year by the Curriculum Coordinating Council (CCC):
​
-
Establish procedures so that all teachers know what is expected of them, and so that all classes of the same level (elementary, middle, high school) are managed consistently.
-
Consider staff development needs. If the following questions cannot all be answered with an unqualified “yes,” then training in differentiated instruction is in order.
​
-
Do teachers know how to plan good instruction for a diverse group of learners?
-
Are they comfortable with directing several different kinds of activities at the same time?
-
Do they know how to address different learning styles?
​
​
3. Make decisions about out-of-class extensions for students needing extra assistance.
​
In school districts committed to an outcome or performance-based system, differentiation is often one of the most troublesome issues to resolve. Educators may have adopted the belief that all students can learn; however, they must also understand that turning this belief into reality requires extended opportunities for some students in the form of remediation and/or enrichment. The problem is determining what those extended opportunities should be, when they should take place, and how to manage them. Before the CCC can proceed, it is important to understand the current climate surrounding extended learning opportunities. The following are some questions that can help facilitate the initial planning discussion:
​
-
Is it clear that the provision of in-class extensions (differentiated instruction) is not an option, it is a necessary part of regular instruction?
-
Are students penalized if they don’t “get it” the first time through?
-
What do we do about the students who are not ready to proceed?
-
Does the student need to pass the first outcome in order to be successful in the one that follows?
-
Are students who do not reach success through the original instruction provided different instructional strategies, assignments, and assessments?
​
HINT: Anonymous teacher surveys can be a good way to get valid information regarding teacher beliefs and practices. This can be a good starting point for the CCC and an indicator of the kinds of professional development that may be necessary later on.
Reteaching
The term reteach indicates that the teacher will provide additional opportunity(s) that are different from the initial instruction. Teachers can usually anticipate which components will be more difficult for some students. Diverse kinds of activities should be planned in advance for those components. Ideally, corrective action should take place at the end of every component so the teacher will know immediately if a student may need further assistance.
​
Sometimes, students simply need a little extra time. Other times, students may need extra support or may be way ahead of the rest of the class for a particular outcome. Differentiated instruction means to provide time, exercises, activities, and/or assignments that will: (1) bring students to mastery of a component or outcome when regular class exercises, activities, and assignments have failed to achieve that goal; or (2) give certain students an opportunity to enrich their learning when the students have demonstrated mastery of the original component or outcome. Teachers can ask the following questions when trying to decide when and how to reteach:
​
-
Are there enough students who have not mastered the outcome so the whole class could benefit from further instruction?
-
Will the missing skill be reviewed, practiced or readdressed through other components?
-
What aspects of the outcome or component does the student not understand?
-
Would a review of the steps of the components work?
-
Could the component be taught in a different way?
​
HINT: If less than half the class needs more time, their activities should not take up whole-class instruction time and thus no enrichment activities need to be assigned. If the number of students who need additional support is about half the class or more, then the teacher must also provide meaningful instruction for the other “half.” These differentiated activities can be happening simultaneously.
​
Ideas for finding time to provide in-class remediated instruction:
-
conference with students to discuss and analyze where they are struggling
-
design lessons based on learning styles of students
-
review with entire class
-
facilitate groups of students doing different kinds of tasks simultaneously
-
group by mixed ability (peer modeling)
-
centers time
-
use a paraprofessional, teacher’s aide, or volunteer assigned to the class
-
use a co-teacher
-
employ technology resources to approach curriculum from a different angle
Even after students have been provided with good-quality, diverse activities in the classroom, some students still will not have accomplished essential learning results. Teachers should use their professional judgment to determine a reasonable amount of time for a concept, and when it occurs, move the whole class on to the next outcome. The district must have a plan in place for continuing to provide assistance to students needing extra support, outside of regular class time.
Ideas for out-of-class re-teaching:
-
before and after school sessions
-
Saturday classes
-
attention from a special-services teacher
-
assistance from the principal
-
peer tutoring
-
paraprofessionals
-
volunteers-parents, community members, retirees, former teachers
-
outcome specific summer school
-
seminar or study hall
The following discussion questions will help guide the CCC discussion regarding activities involving remediation and extra support:
​
-
What is currently available to students in terms of remediation and extra support in a subject?
-
Are we planning ahead for remediation activities in class?
-
If we provide out-of-class opportunities, how can we assure they will directly align with classroom outcomes?
-
How well do students take advantage of what is currently available?
-
How well do parents understand what is currently available?
-
What creative options can we brainstorm to help in this area? Should we survey the staff?
Extensions
Just as teachers must identify students needing remediation, they must also ascertain whether students need enrichment. When students have already mastered the material being presented, they must be given opportunities to explore more challenging activities that will expand their knowledge and skills associated with the outcome or component being taught. These extensions must be purposeful and planned, not unstructured free time, unrelated random assignments or games (crossword puzzles), or simply more of the same. Unlike remediation, it is difficult for many teachers to create enrichment activities on the fly. Teachers must plan ahead and have them ready. In some cases, enrichment may begin immediately, after a student has taken a pre-test and shown mastery of the outcome. Enrichment can also be given after students show mastery of specific components, or even at the end of a unit. Whenever it is given, it should lend itself to being an opportunity for students to pursue something of interest relating to the content of the outcome. All too often, teachers use students who have mastered the material as peer tutors for others needing remediation instead of focusing on an enrichment activity that is appropriate and tailored toward studying the component in greater depth and making connections on a deeper level. Teachers can ask the following questions when planning for enrichment:
​
-
Can components be modified to add an extra element of challenge?
-
Can there be a cross-curricular connection for the enrichment activity?
-
Is there a related topic or idea that students are interested in?
Ideas for finding time to provide in-class enriched instruction:
-
stations or learning centers around the classroom set up in advance for enrichment
-
jigsaw/cooperative learning
-
co-teacher provides specific enrichment instruction
-
independent study
​
Ideas for finding time to provide out-of-class enriched instruction:
-
before and after school sessions
-
Saturday classes
-
attention from a special-services teacher
-
assistance from the principal
-
peer tutoring
-
paraprofessionals
-
volunteers-parents, community members, retirees, former teachers
-
outcome specific summer school
-
independent study contract where teacher meets regularly with student to monitor progress (product, scoring rubric, and resources should be in the contract)
-
mentorship program with specialist in the field, college student/instructor, community member, or teacher of higher grade level (possibly online)
HINT: Having both remediation and enrichment activities planned in advance will allow teachers to multi-task in the classroom and do both simultaneously. While some students may be doing enrichment activities, teachers can then spend time assisting those who have not mastered the component. And remember, a student needing enrichment in one outcome may very well need extra support or remediation in a different outcome.
​
The CCC may use the following questions to guide discussion regarding remediation and enrichment planning:
​
-
What is currently available to students to extend their knowledge in a subject?
-
Are we planning ahead for enrichment opportunities in class?
-
Do students take advantage of what is currently available?
-
How well do parents understand what is currently available?
-
What creative options can we brainstorm to help in this area? Should we survey the staff?
Reassessment
By now, it is understood that the main end goal for the CLI Model is student learning. In terms of student learning, districts must decide what part reassessment will play. If students are allowed to reassess, they should not take the same test for the reassessment. It is wise to have more than one version of an assessment so students aren’t just demonstrating memorization of answers from the initial assessment. The district grading policy and definition of mastery will guide the CCC in making decisions about reassessment. The following questions will help steer the discussion:
​
-
Do we allow for reassessment of outcomes and/or components?
-
Do students have to retake entire assessments, or can they retake just certain parts?
-
How will the reassessment be scored?
-
Will the reassessment take the place of the initial assessment?
-
Will the highest score be used in reporting, or the last score?
-
Are the guidelines the same for component and outcome assessments?
​
HINT: Reassessment policies for components and outcomes may be different from each other depending on grading policies. For example, if the district is only using outcome scores to figure the final grade, sometimes it will allow classroom teachers to use their judgment on reassessments for components; however, they will require teachers to give reassessment opportunities for outcomes if students don’t master them at specific levels.